LIT vs. EWT
LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) and EWT (iShares MSCI Taiwan ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LIT is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index, while EWT is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Taiwan Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LIT returned 14.53%/yr vs 19.56%/yr for EWT. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LIT charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for EWT.
Performance
LIT vs. EWT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LIT achieves a 27.00% return, which is significantly lower than EWT's 61.53% return. Over the past 10 years, LIT has underperformed EWT with an annualized return of 14.53%, while EWT has yielded a comparatively higher 19.56% annualized return.
LIT
- 1D
- 2.02%
- 1M
- -8.05%
- YTD
- 27.00%
- 6M
- 29.31%
- 1Y
- 120.44%
- 3Y*
- 9.00%
- 5Y*
- 4.01%
- 10Y*
- 14.53%
EWT
- 1D
- 0.17%
- 1M
- 8.18%
- YTD
- 61.53%
- 6M
- 67.45%
- 1Y
- 89.17%
- 3Y*
- 34.98%
- 5Y*
- 17.48%
- 10Y*
- 19.56%
LIT vs. EWT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF | 27.00% | 60.05% | -19.19% | -12.18% | -29.91% | 36.74% | 127.88% | 3.27% | -28.63% | 64.19% |
EWT iShares MSCI Taiwan ETF | 61.53% | 28.38% | 16.11% | 23.97% | -28.90% | 26.18% | 31.50% | 33.36% | -9.90% | 26.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between LIT and EWT is 0.52, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.52 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.51 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.59 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2010 | 0.60 |
The correlation between LIT and EWT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.
LIT vs. EWT - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
LIT
EWT
Basic Materials
Industrials
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Real Estate
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Basic Materials
LIT
EWT
Industrials
LIT
EWT
Technology
LIT
EWT
Consumer Cyclical
LIT
EWT
Communication Services
LIT
-
EWT
Consumer Defensive
LIT
-
EWT
Energy
LIT
-
EWT
-
Financial Services
LIT
-
EWT
Healthcare
LIT
-
EWT
Real Estate
LIT
-
EWT
-
Utilities
LIT
-
EWT
-
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LIT vs. EWT — Risk / Return Rank
LIT
EWT
LIT vs. EWT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and iShares MSCI Taiwan ETF (EWT). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| LIT | EWT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.22 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.06 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.52 | 1.55 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 7.36 | 8.53 | -1.17 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 27.27 | 25.15 | +2.12 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LIT vs. EWT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, roughly equal to the maximum EWT drawdown of -64.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and EWT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LIT | EWT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -65.91% | -64.37% | -1.54% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.46% | -10.51% | -5.95% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -53.01% | -25.66% | -27.35% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -65.91% | -38.88% | -27.03% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -65.91% | -38.88% | -27.03% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.21% | -4.19% | -7.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -33.59% | -19.21% | -14.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.45% | 3.56% | +0.89% |
Volatility
LIT vs. EWT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) is 11.56%, while iShares MSCI Taiwan ETF (EWT) has a volatility of 13.55%. This indicates that LIT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EWT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LIT | EWT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.56% | 13.55% | -1.99% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.80% | 22.68% | +1.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 33.94% | 26.75% | +7.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 32.04% | 22.95% | +9.09% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.77% | 21.78% | +8.99% |
LIT vs. EWT - Expense Ratio Comparison
LIT has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than EWT's 0.59% expense ratio.
Dividends
LIT vs. EWT - Dividend Comparison
LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%, less than EWT's 2.74% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EWT iShares MSCI Taiwan ETF | 2.74% | 4.43% | 3.32% | 8.12% | 18.82% | 0.55% | 1.83% | 2.49% | 3.16% | 2.81% | 2.39% | 3.12% |
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF | 0.38% | 0.49% | 0.93% | 1.11% | 0.99% | 0.22% | 0.40% | 1.85% | 2.52% | 3.26% | 2.15% | 0.24% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LIT and EWT have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EWT has higher volatility (13.55%) compared to LIT (11.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIT dropped -65.91% vs EWT's -64.37%.
On 10-year performance, EWT leads with 19.56% vs 14.53% for LIT. On fees, EWT is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, LIT has been the lower-risk option at 11.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, EWT has performed better with a 19.56% return vs 14.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EWT is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.
EWT has the higher dividend yield at 2.74%, compared with 0.38% for LIT.
LIT is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while EWT is Asia Pacific Equities. LIT tracks Solactive Global Lithium Index, while EWT tracks MSCI Taiwan Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LIT and 0.59% for EWT.
LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.57 vs 3.36), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for LIT and EWT
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer